Announcing CoffeeScript 2

> So a CoffeeScript => is now output as =>

Wait, using the arrow function notation doesn't bind this, arguments, super, or new.target[1] in javascript, as opposed to the normal function syntax. Not being a user of coffeescript, did coffeescript not do that already, or did they also throw in code to change that in the generated code?

It seem to me it would make sense to map items that match conceptually, not just notationally (unless it's common to have both coffeescript and JS side by side). Can someone comment on how this is handled?

1: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

Edit: Added "in javascript" after reference to make it obvious I was talking about JS behavior for the binding.

Jeremy,

First off thank you for Underscore, Backbone and CoffeeScript. Your work really has helped me and my development team.

This question is a little off topic but one I've been wanting to ask for a long time:

Last year you took a year off from The New York Times to ride your motorcycle across the Western Hemisphere. Just recently you were hired back at the paper, doing what it appears to be the same thing in the graphics department.

From a hiring perspective, did you have to reapply for your job, or did the Times just give you the necessary time off?

If this was considered a "sabbatical," how did you justify traveling around the Americas as something that could benefit the paper?

I don't mean to offend. I'm genuinely curious. A lot of people aren't fortunate enough to take a year off for traveling and then be rehired at their company, especially in the journalism industry with the revenue declines, job cuts and managers wanting to hire cheaper people.

Thanks again for all you've contributed.

Congrats!

I loved the elegance coffeescript & it was the language that convinced me JS was a reasonable target.

Though I, like many, moved to TS, I use CS every day via its spiritual child es6.

While I understand the let vs var thing, I wish I could tell the compiler that I promise not to non-obviously reference a local var (e.g. in an eval). Then CoffeeScript could determine it is only written at decl time and could use const. Technically, this could be used for var scoping too in the let vs var issue.

> Keep in mind that const only protects you from reassigning a variable

While I haven't looked, I'd suspect there are performance implications too.

I was browsing the CoffeeScript docs and everything looks much more concise. It seems like your code would half the size. Have people done real world comparisons on large code bases? Rewrites?